As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.

Sorry, didn't get any further than the opening page, with it's accompanying images. Teeth just a little too white, hair's just a little too perfectly manufactured, his ties are just a little too patterned (though well-tied. I respect a nice full windsor). The whole thing screamed pre-packaged evangelical.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

I can't judge him in comparison to other scholars in his same area of expertise, but he is a good source for the Christian who wants to get a basic understanding of some of the more popular arguments for Christianity.

As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.

Are his arguments for Christianity closer to a popular level than that of Swinburne? I tried reading Swinburne and did fine with most of it, but then he goes into that funky logic stuff and I have no clue what he's talking about.

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

I think the reason he keeps repeating himself is because Ive yet to see one debate tear down his opening statement and replace it with a better one. The Peter Atkins one was fantastic, the man didn't even try to attempt it.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

I sometimes think Bill is exactly what many college-level/college educated people need to read. When it comes to apologetics, I tend to be far more pragmatic than dogmatic.

For instance, in the philosophy or religion I will always prefer Swinburne, Plantinga, or even MacIntyre (I know he's in Ethics, but much of what he says can easily cross over into religion) over Bill. At the same time, I can't hand Plantinga's "God and Other Minds" to a sophomore in college who is doubting his faith or questioning Christianity; I can, however, give him "A Reasonable Faith" and guide him through it.

I still think we're missing too many Continental philosophers of Religion who are Christians (I purposefully exclude Gianni Vattimo, John Caputo, Peter Rollins, or others). I'm not necessarily referring to those in the neo-Marxist or post-Marxist tradition, but simply someone who can write in an existential format and is easy for the public to understand. The philosophy of religion is almost exclusively analytical (if one seeks to be orthodox that is), and I think that's a shame since Christianity is an existential religion.

Anyway, I digress. I think Bill's works are fantastic for college students. He doesn't offer a lot of original thoughts and he's not a philosophic innovator (though he tries to be). But that's not a bad thing. Rather, he's a synthesizer and takes from different philosophies to paint a bigger picture. This means that his explanations will be less technical and a bit more sloppy, which is fine and affords him the chance to not clean it up (in certain situations) because it would force him to get bogged down in the details. I myself am a synthesizer when it comes to philosophy (though I do have two theories that I want to develop at some point that would be innovative, even though they're ancient), so I'm certainly not putting him down by labeling him a synthesizer. Few people can be innovators like Plantinga (who's concept of warrant was almost entirely new) or MacIntyre (who's virtue ethics helped found a revolution, though in all fairness Philippa Foot really worked on it prior to MacIntyre).

The three issues I have with Bill's philosophy are as follows:

1) His attitude and demeanor when debating atheists, especially hostile ones2) His over-reliance on the Kalaam argument, to the exclusion of other cosmological arguments (likewise, I just don't think the Kalaam is that strong as it has to consistently be unpacked)3) He's too Aristotelean and doesn't allow for mystery as a legitimate answer, leading to some questionable beliefs concerning God and time. In fairness, he would say that he does allow for mystery, but it really doesn't come across in his writings or debates

« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 04:42:08 AM by theo philosopher »

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.

As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.

I disagree. You made an assertion, but gave no example, evidence, or argument in support. The philosopher J.P. Moreland said that Dr. Craig is the greatest apologist in the last half century. I would add that William Lane Craig is the best debater I've ever heard. Nobody has a more in-depth knowledge of the Kalam Cosmological argument, the nature of time (as it relates to Christian theism) and the Axiological (moral argument) than William Lane Craig.

As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.

I remember him saying that he repeats himself for the sake of the audience, most of whom are not taking notes and would not therefor realize if his opponent failed to respond to one of his points. Thus, he repeats his case to make it clear that the issue was not dealt with.

For this reason he rarely needs to make his case stronger.

Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

You misunderstand. Some of what he says is BS. He has been shown that it's BS. Christians have shown him that it's BS. And someone who is intellectually honest would admit that it is BS and not continue repeating it. Or at the very least he would see that it is hurting the cause generally and choose to use other arguments and examples.

His being terribly redundant and repeating 90% of the same script each time he debates (what you are referring to) is not about his intellectual cowardice, but rather his intellectual laziness.

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

You misunderstand. Some of what he says is BS. He has been shown that it's BS. Christians have shown him that it's BS. And someone who is intellectually honest would admit that it is BS and not continue repeating it. Or at the very least he would see that it is hurting the cause generally and choose to use other arguments and examples.

His being terribly redundant and repeating 90% of the same script each time he debates (what you are referring to) is not about his intellectual cowardice, but rather his intellectual laziness.

Examples?

Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

You misunderstand. Some of what he says is BS. He has been shown that it's BS. Christians have shown him that it's BS. And someone who is intellectually honest would admit that it is BS and not continue repeating it. Or at the very least he would see that it is hurting the cause generally and choose to use other arguments and examples.

His being terribly redundant and repeating 90% of the same script each time he debates (what you are referring to) is not about his intellectual cowardice, but rather his intellectual laziness.

Examples?

That was for you, Asteriktos

Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

As said, Prof. Craig is probably the best apologist for the fundaments of theism and Christianity in public debate today.

Being an excellen apologist and debater is not the same as being a philosopher. A very good philosophical argument may well be so arcane for the general public to the point of being useless in public debates.

In public debates your main skill is rethoric and if you are an ethical person it will be rethoric based on real facts and not in the skill to convince only. Actually, Schopenhauer if I'm not mistaken, says that rethoric is exclusevily the skilfull use of true facts and logic as basis to convince, whereas "eristiscs" would be the flawed or ill-intended use of falacies and psychological tricks to convince without any real reason.

Prof. Craig is clearly a very good and uniquely informed debater and apologist. His properly philosophical work seems to be in the are of the theology of time, and I haven't read anything more substantial to even know what it looks like.

As said, Prof. Craig is probably the best apologist for the fundaments of theism and Christianity in public debate today.

Being an excellen apologist and debater is not the same as being a philosopher. A very good philosophical argument may well be so arcane for the general public to the point of being useless in public debates.

In public debates your main skill is rethoric and if you are an ethical person it will be rethoric based on real facts and not in the skill to convince only. Actually, Schopenhauer if I'm not mistaken, says that rethoric is exclusevily the skilfull use of true facts and logic as basis to convince, whereas "eristiscs" would be the flawed or ill-intended use of falacies and psychological tricks to convince without any real reason.

Prof. Craig is clearly a very good and uniquely informed debater and apologist. His properly philosophical work seems to be in the are of the theology of time, and I haven't read anything more substantial to even know what it looks like.

But WLC is a philosopher. I must agree with you somewhat, in that I think he is a populariser of the key points of many scientists and fellow philosophers. I don't know of any raw-intellectual material that he's generated personally, but he has honed the works of others and presented them in concise groups of premises. Still, I've noticed that people (usually his non-believing detractors) label him as merely as "Christian apologist" while his opponents have their full titles given to them.

Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

As said, Prof. Craig is probably the best apologist for the fundaments of theism and Christianity in public debate today.

Being an excellen apologist and debater is not the same as being a philosopher. A very good philosophical argument may well be so arcane for the general public to the point of being useless in public debates.

In public debates your main skill is rethoric and if you are an ethical person it will be rethoric based on real facts and not in the skill to convince only. Actually, Schopenhauer if I'm not mistaken, says that rethoric is exclusevily the skilfull use of true facts and logic as basis to convince, whereas "eristiscs" would be the flawed or ill-intended use of falacies and psychological tricks to convince without any real reason.

Prof. Craig is clearly a very good and uniquely informed debater and apologist. His properly philosophical work seems to be in the are of the theology of time, and I haven't read anything more substantial to even know what it looks like.

But WLC is a philosopher. I must agree with you somewhat, in that I think he is a populariser of the key points of many scientists and fellow philosophers. I don't know of any raw-intellectual material that he's generated personally, but he has honed the works of others and presented them in concise groups of premises. Still, I've noticed that people (usually his non-believing detractors) label him as merely as "Christian apologist" while his opponents have their full titles given to them.

Well, for one, I don't think there is nothing "mere" about being an apologist, and one at his level. I wish I could defend the faith like that. From the debates I've watched on Youtube, many of his opponents titles are absolutely irrelevant for the issues they wanted to pontificate on. The very fact their titles are mentioned is an eristic tool itself, trying to gain people by an appeal to authority.

As said, Prof. Craig is probably the best apologist for the fundaments of theism and Christianity in public debate today.

Being an excellen apologist and debater is not the same as being a philosopher. A very good philosophical argument may well be so arcane for the general public to the point of being useless in public debates.

In public debates your main skill is rethoric and if you are an ethical person it will be rethoric based on real facts and not in the skill to convince only. Actually, Schopenhauer if I'm not mistaken, says that rethoric is exclusevily the skilfull use of true facts and logic as basis to convince, whereas "eristiscs" would be the flawed or ill-intended use of falacies and psychological tricks to convince without any real reason.

Prof. Craig is clearly a very good and uniquely informed debater and apologist. His properly philosophical work seems to be in the are of the theology of time, and I haven't read anything more substantial to even know what it looks like.

But WLC is a philosopher. I must agree with you somewhat, in that I think he is a populariser of the key points of many scientists and fellow philosophers. I don't know of any raw-intellectual material that he's generated personally, but he has honed the works of others and presented them in concise groups of premises. Still, I've noticed that people (usually his non-believing detractors) label him as merely as "Christian apologist" while his opponents have their full titles given to them.

Well, for one, I don't think there is nothing "mere" about being an apologist, and one at his level. I wish I could defend the faith like that. From the debates I've watched on Youtube, many of his opponents titles are absolutely irrelevant for the issues they wanted to pontificate on. The very fact their titles are mentioned is an eristic tool itself, trying to gain people by an appeal to authority.

I believe that some appeal to authority is helpful, but yeah, it can be over-stated. This is particularly so when it comes to scientists. I've seen some of the scientists debated say some of the most tunnel-visioned, illogical trash only to have atheists say "He's a scientist! He knows what he's talking about!". The debates with Dr Lawrence Krauss comes to mind.

Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.

I keep waiting for people who claim WLC is unethical to provide specifics and examples for their assertions. What I find unethical is calling someone unethical and then providing nothing to back it up.

Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.

I keep waiting for people who claim WLC is unethical to provide specifics and examples for their assertions. What I find unethical is calling someone unethical and then providing nothing to back it up.

I'd be happy to discuss it in PM with you.

Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm

if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.

I keep waiting for people who claim WLC is unethical to provide specifics and examples for their assertions. What I find unethical is calling someone unethical and then providing nothing to back it up.

I'd be happy to discuss it in PM with you.

Is there a particular reason that it can't be made public?

Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.

I keep waiting for people who claim WLC is unethical to provide specifics and examples for their assertions. What I find unethical is calling someone unethical and then providing nothing to back it up.

I'd be happy to discuss it in PM with you.

Is there a particular reason that it can't be made public?

I think it would be unprofitable.

Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm

if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.

I keep waiting for people who claim WLC is unethical to provide specifics and examples for their assertions. What I find unethical is calling someone unethical and then providing nothing to back it up.

I'd be happy to discuss it in PM with you.

Is there a particular reason that it can't be made public?

I think it would be unprofitable.

Such a tease. PM me as well with the juicy details, please. I listen to this guy, so I'd appreciate it.